Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds extra behavioral context: results are presented 'in catalogue order', include a specific summary format, and the tool 'returns every matching cocktail' with no cap. It also notes that omitting family lists the entire 500-drink catalogue, which isn't obvious from annotations alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact yet information-dense. The first sentence defines the action and output, the second explains when to use it versus siblings, and the third gives alternative tools. Every sentence earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the core behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: the result set (whole catalogue or family), summary fields, ordering, the 500-drink scope, and explicit usage guidance. It leaves no significant gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers the 'family' parameter exhaustively: it lists all valid family values, notes exact case- and diacritic-insensitive matching, and states that unknown families return an empty list. The description merely says 'optionally restricted to one drink family' without adding meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists the entire catalogue of cocktails as summaries with specific fields (name, URL, family, glassware), distinguishing it from sibling search tools. The verb 'List the whole catalogue' precisely describes the action and resource.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly contrasts with search_cocktails and find_cocktails_by_ingredient (cap results, need query), and states to use this when there is nothing specific to search for. It also points to get_cocktail_recipe for a named drink and find_cocktails_by_ingredient for ingredient discovery, providing clear when-to-use and alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.